User talk:Jill Bioskop X
Earlier Earlier contributions as 88.211.143.226 Jill Bioskop X 05:53, 20 November 2006 (CST) :Heya there welcome, if you want, you can have a non-external link like this: . Isn't that exciting! :P (Yes I'm bored :P) --Xasxas256 06:00, 20 November 2006 (CST) ::Thanks for the welcome, and for the tip. I tried to make an internal link first but all my variations failed.Jill Bioskop X 06:52, 20 November 2006 (CST) :::No worries, if you're into wiki editing tips...check this out! --Xasxas256 19:03, 20 November 2006 (CST) yo! hi, you changed my heading on the spirit bomber from untested to favored. The build has since fallen from tested status (3 extra favored votes) and so I put it back in untested. Voting is a continuous process. I'm thus reverting your change (Not a fifty five 17:26, 2 February 2007 (CST)) :Once tested, per GW:VETTING, the only allowance for reverting back to untested currently is "If the build has been sufficiently altered to render old votes invalid". --- Barek (talk • ) - 17:36, 2 February 2007 (CST) ::you're actually incorrect on this matter. What is being referred to is if the build is changed and the votes are invalid, all the votes are ARCHIVED. This is not the case I'm talking about. It is current practice and supported by policy that if a vote falls from tested due to insufficient NUMBER in votes, it is removed and placed in testing with the votes NOT archived. (Not a fifty five 17:44, 2 February 2007 (CST)) ::Besides regardless, the change to the build is actually a nerf on boon of creation which hampers its energy mangement (and the addition of superior skills from nightfallNot a fifty five 17:47, 2 February 2007 (CST)) ::Nevermind, turns out rapta already did this in the dicussion and the revote turned it to unfavored unanimously. I think it's best this enters archived builds. (Not a fifty five 17:49, 2 February 2007 (CST)) :::Where are you seeing policy to say it can go back to untested? GW:VETTING states "Once a build is favored or unfavored, it can not be moved back into untested (exception: re-voting, see below). However it can still be moved to the other category, if enough people vote for the other category, such that this category now has 3 more people compared to the current one." --- Barek (talk • ) - 17:51, 2 February 2007 (CST) ::::I see.. that's pretty gay lol. People generally stop voting once it reaches tested/untested, when votes are added, it's usually with very sharp disagreement to its placement. I'm gonna call for a policy change on the build talk page. In any case I've archived the build due to rapta's revote that I missed. (Not a fifty five 17:56, 2 February 2007 (CST)) ::::: I'm taking this to your talk page, so we don't spam Jill Bishop any further :-) --- Barek (talk • ) - 17:59, 2 February 2007 (CST) ::::::You leave the GuildWiki alone for 30 minutes, and wham, there's a war going on on your talk page. Well, my thoughts about the subject have already been summed up by Barek. From here I am going to leave it to admins anyway (glad I am not one) to talk/decide about this subject. I was just trying to follow the policy that I believed was in use. -- Jill Bioskop X 18:08, 2 February 2007 (CST) :::::::Right, last comment, turns out you were right, but I'm actually gonna ask for the policy to be changed on the builds page. Six consecutive votes to change a build's status is just not cool! (Not a fifty five 18:11, 2 February 2007 (CST)) Nice Job Hi Jill. Nice job so far, i think u ve inspired me to create my own too. Wish u luck with this. ::Hey Jill are you here now? I m workin on my page and wanan ask you if you dont knwo how to let that TOC go off. I really dont like it there and cant do aything to it as it interferes me there. ThxZeratul 18:22, 8 February 2007 (CST) Instable Moebius Hey, I got your message. The reason I changed the build name was really just that instable is not a word. If the author really prefers to use a non-existent word for a slight pun, he/she is welcome to revert the name change. I just thought that using proper English was more practical. And, at the time, I was trying to fix up the names of some of the builds in the untested sections (i.e. X/Any --> X/any, misspellings, etc.) so I may have just assumed it was an typo especially considering the poorly written page. Defiant Elements 17:39, 21 February 2007 (CST) fake/fun skills Please create fake/fun articles only in your own user namespace (like so: User:Jill Bioskop X\BAMPH!). Those things do not belong into the main wiki namespace. Also, please don't add them to general categories like Category:Skill stubs, but rather to Category:GuildWiki humor. ;) I will move the articles you have created to your user space. --[[User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive|'84-175']] (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2007 (CST) :They were not meant as fun nor humor. Those are the Locked Skills found via manipulating the Skill Templates. I thought that putting them in the Category "Locked Skills" would be a added value to the GuildWiki's database. But if the admins don't agree with this I stop with it. - Jill Bioskop X 08:08, 22 February 2007 (CST) ::I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly. What skill template did you manipulate in what way to find them? Are those skills somewhere in the game, but aren't actually used by any creature or availible to players? I don't see much of a point in documenting them then, at least not as regular skill articles. --[[User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive|'84-175']] (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2007 (CST) :::See: Talk:Skill_Template_format, but it's not that big a deal for me, I'll just find something else to play with on the pages :) - Jill Bioskop X 09:18, 22 February 2007 (CST) ::::Oh, now I see. Funny thing that Anet left stuff like that in the game and that people actually found it. :) I still wouldn't create articles for those skills, but maybe mention them in a trivia section in the Skill Template format article. --[[User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive|'84-175']] (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2007 (CST) Bottom Stuff. Hi Jill, me again. Plz can u tell me if that bottom tables mentioning luxon language and so on are free availible? or when putting them into my site should i pay attention to someone? i just was messing with my talk morning so i wonder to put it on. Thx in advance.Zeratul unsigned2 thank you so much for going through and unsigning all those comments. that drives me nuts. with love --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 03:43, 28 March 2007 (CDT) :You're welcome. I'm doing it especially because some people make idiotic comments without signing; I just hate that. I found one person (or at least one IP-adress, but I guess one persone since the comments were made within minutes of each other) having a conversation with her-/himself on a talk page! Talk:Backbreaker --- :Jill Bioskop X(T| ) 03:50, 28 March 2007 (CDT) ::Occasionally, I get the feeling that people think that if they don't sign their comments, no one will know who wrote the comment. I feel like the vast majority of policy violations of things like GW:NPA are unsigned comments. That may just be that more Anon users break policies because they don't know about them... but I think my assumption makes sense. It is as if a lot of people don't realize we can just click on history. Same thing for editing articles. [[User:Defiant Elements|'Defiant Elements']] (talk ~ ) 03:52, 28 March 2007 (CDT) Check this... Well i got sort of inspiration from you and a little courage of mine:) so i run into myself creating some templates. I've implemented it in my warrior page at elites. It's not finished but looks fine so far. -- Zeratul 06:02, 30 March 2007 (CDT) PvX Builds I LOVE yOU! Or your general sight for things. Thx for that. -- Zeratul Regarding earlier You see, I checked the discussion pages and the history of the pages related to the dungeon and neither gave me conclusive evidence that anyone had "bug" related issues other than yourself (since you were the only one talknig about bugs in discussion and you were the one who numerated the "bugs"). The fact that I typed the message in question in my edit summary, should tell you that it was nothing but a brief description, and I was not going to nit-pick details in something people normally leave blank. But if this is what you were looking for... The "bugs" are simple logic issues with "if-then" statements and if all conditions are not met then a certain output is produced. Wurms are unable to be spotted when they aren't agroo'd since they are underground. Doors don't open unless frostmaw spawns are killed etc. Frostmaw the Kinslayer will not spawn unless all other wurms are killed. Its just a series of issues that could have sprouted from one small issue. The game is not perfect, however not being able to locate an invisible (underground) enemy and having several "bugs" branching from the problem is almost absurd. An example was Maw the Mountain Heart... the necromancer boss from Prophecies who was said not to spawn , and Anet addressed the issue back when wurms were extremely buggy and they also stated that the boss was not bugged any more than any other wurm. (for instance collisions, you could stand inside the wurm and it would be unable to strike you with melee dmg) An example of a tested bug... when wurms from GW:EN move, they remain "above ground" while their trail can be seen below ground. When the wurm arrives at its destination it is almost as if it had shadow-stepped, because it instantly teleports. Before reporting a bug, protocol involves investigating, much like science. You really should prove the bug is in existance, prior to posting, since all you did was just centralize the views of other persons. The Black Leach 22:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :This is a reply to http://gw.gamewikis.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Black_Leach&diff=1042708&oldid=739441 to which I replied with this Are you ignorant? You just revert for the reason that I ACCUSED you? The fact remains that the bugs were simple issues that individual players had. What do you want me to do? Edit it again and not leave any comment? Before posting "facts" that you are unsure of (since you havent tested any of these yourself) on pages viewed by the public you should probably post in the discussion page, along with the other people who post bugs without discussion. I MORE than understand that you centralized the issues, but the issues were not proven to begin with, and you just took them for granted. Do not make this an edit war. If you take a case to court and do not have significant evidence to prove something your case gets thrown out. You haven't proven anything except immaturity. The Black Leach 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC) *Making a new page just to list bugs doesn't conform to our policies for article creation; it did not belong in the mainspace. *To both of you: Less namecalling plx. This is not a game-breaking issue and it is only your two's personal power struggles which has escalated the conflict into seeming serious. *Mr. Leach: You are correct that bugs without hard evidence should be questioned and perhaps removed if no such bug can be proven. *Ms. Bioskop: You are correct that simply removing bug notices without proper discussion is a bad thing, and perhaps a bit hypocritical. *Both of you: Because it seems to be a controversial "he said, she said" issue. I've deleted the page and moved the listed Bugs to the Talkpage of Cold Vengeance. Discuss there; if bugs can be proven, put on the main page. If they can not be proven, leave them on the talkpage as a record that the quest once was bugged. Since they did happen to at least one person who can testify to them. (T/ ) 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Pattern ---- Is it just me or am I noticing a pattern in your charecter's names..hmm...Doom Box!!! 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Big changes for GuildWiki We, the GuildWiki community, have moved the GuildWiki content to a new site at http://www.guildwiki.org. It will maintain the look and feel of GuildWiki that you've been used to, and the majority of our active editors will be shifting their primary editing activity to there. (Read here for more information, including details on how to reclaim your account.) The current wiki at guildwars.wikia.com will, of course, continue to be hosted by Wikia, and we have some big changes planned for it. Wikia has recently introduced a new user interface to all of its sites that emphasizes community interaction over encyclopedic content, so we're planning to leverage this new style and endeavor to turn GuildWars@Wikia into more of a fan community site, promoting fan-created content better than GuildWiki did. (Read here for more information.) If you are still playing Guild Wars (or would like to do so again), now is a good time to get involved, either on GuildWiki at http://www.guildwiki.org or right here on GuildWars@Wikia. Be sure to pass this info on to all other Guild Wars fans you know! — The GuildWiki community, represented by Bot ishmael 15:48, December 1, 2010 (UTC)